About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
WHUT (Howard University Television) 8
CSPAN 6
CSPAN2 6
KQED (PBS) 4
WETA 4
KRCB (PBS) 2
WMPT (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 35
Search Results 0 to 34 of about 35 (some duplicates have been removed)
. yorktown, appomattox, the pentagon where 9/11 occurred -- there is a ceremony tonight i will be commissioned in -- there is a commission in april. we care very deeply about these events. one in nine virginians birth to death is a veteran. when you add in the guard and reserve and contractors, now you are probably talking about one in three of us. we care very deeply about all that is within dod. let me be plain, the threat that virginians and others are talking about now more than ever is the inability of congress to find a way forward on a reasonable budget compromise. that is what is in the newspapers and the headlines. at the direction of the deputy director, dod is planning for future cuts. i am very worried at the macro level about dod's ability to pursue and execute appropriate national security objectives in this time of congressional inability to find a budget compromise. the current cr limits flexibility, for example, of the military to appropriately taylor resources, we have no flexibility to deal with a shortfall. and to me, it seems like funding the military
are to buy the pentagon didn't show you any video of things that miss. that is bad pr. and the percentage of weapons that were smart weapons in the first gulf war but infinitely more than anything the iraqis had was remarkably small compared to the impression the pentagon gave them a military briefing for the alicia pictures of smart bombs and smart missiles and things fly into windows. that was the percentage actually expended. so i don't think this is a revolution in military affairs so much as a vivid demonstration of just how proficient the united states was in waging war, especially can do this proficient adversary. but it also is a military affairs in a fundamentalist about is the car still has a boat here and the ultimate goal of the conflict was a political goal and therefore the military plan made that involve smart and weapons were designed with a traditional military conclusion, which in truth is not revolutionary at all, getting the enemy to do what she wanted. i can't see it as fares. and getting assigned from the back right of time, but i do want to give -- >> yet, let randy
that came out recently. it did suggest the pentagon is pushing the pentagon that would only keep 8000 troops in afghanistan. i know that general austin, you weren't a part of the process so far, but can you support a plan that was scheduled withdraws troops in advance? you know, we're looking at withdraws troops in afghanistan and according to this article from a passing down to 1000 within a short period of time, i have questions if we can even maintain our mission, let alone complete the mission. how can you make decisions on troop withdraw when sec previously, so much depends on the ground, what the government is doing, what variability eyes up to that point. how would you approach a proposal like that? >> i certainly would first really work hard to make sure i fully understood with the leadership wanted to get done moving into the future. certainly my advice is the commander on the ground or commander central command would provide my advice based upon breaking the security forces are and the conditions in theater and what i think we need to do to move forward to make sure we maintain the
is confirmed and sworn in." close quote. so if anybody's under any misapprehension, i believe the pentagon press secretary has made that clear, we have a secretary of defense. he has not resigned, and he will continue to serve until such time as his successor is sworn in. and i would just say again to my friend, the senator from illinois, the assistant majority leader, we all know what a filibuster is. a filibuster is designed to kill a nomination or to defeat legislation, as the senator from tennessee said. and i would say this is equivalent to what happened back in 2005, and i have a letter here, mr. president, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to be made part of the record following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: and i will refer to it. this is a letter signed by chris dodd, our former colleague who served on the foreign relations committee, and joe biden when he was the ranking member of the foreign relations committee back in 2005. it's entitled "dear democratic colleague, we write to urge you to oppose the cloture on the bolton nomination tonight. w
get it worse? i worked in the pentagon. it would have made it a lot better. so we realized you really have to go after the people who do the work, people who do logistics, communications, pass information, do car bombs, you have to take those out. we came up with a strategy, philadelphia would love this. it is like rocky balboa and apollo creed. we'll hit them in the midsection and hit them a lot. from august of 2004 when we did 18 raids, two years, later, same month, same force, same fight, we were doing 300 raids a month. that was ten a night. now, if you stop and you say, well, ten a night, that's a lot, that's impressive. that means every raid guy on the force is going on a raid at least one raid every night. every pilot's flying one or 2:00 raids every night. and these raids are not patrols. this is not with foot, these are going in the door, somebody is getting shot. extraordinary, and to do that though you can't use previous systems. one you've got to be able to bring in this intelligence on an industrial scale. you have got to be able -- we got to the point where instead of th
effect. the pentagon needs a seasoned leader to diplomat these cuts, cuts for which an overwhelmingly majority of republicans in congress voted. the so-called sequester, mr. president, was supported by 174 republicans in the house of representatives, 28 republicans here in the senate, 60% and 75% of the two republican bodies in this country. we have a balanced proposal to replace those across-the-board cuts for this year with smart spending reductions which must continue, a measure to close corporate tax loopholes and wasteful subsidies. and revenue from the wealthiest among us, americans making millions of dollars each year. it's critical that the republicans and democrats come together to find a balanced way to avert these drastic cuts. the consequence of the so-called sequester cuts are real not only for national defense but for millions of american families and businesses alike. three-quarters of a million jobs, 750,000 jobs, mr. president, are at stake. across the country tens of thousands of teachers, including thousands of workers with disabled children would be laid off. 70,00
lawmakers talking about passing what's called transfer authority enabling these agencies, the pentagon and others, to set priorities and not this draconian sequester setup. the white house is saying that they may not be in favor of that. so you have this standoff that it appears the sequester's going to move forward just as it is. jon: we'll just see how bad it is. a lot of people say the politicians are sort of hyping the damage that we can expect starting friday. we'll see. bret baier from "special report." thank you. you can watch bret on "special report," all of the latest political developments, and this is going to be a big week, 6 p.m. eastern right here on fox news channel. jenna: well, u.s. special forces who risk their lives to defend the people of afghanistan, the innocent people of afghanistan, are under fire by the afghan president now. we're going to tell you what's behind hamid karzai's surprising accusations and what it means for our troops in the fight against the taliban. >>> plus, some breaking news from sin city. police naming a prime suspect in a wild shootout that
. as is widely recognized, sequestration over the next 10 years apply to the pentagon budget would only reduce it in inflation adjusted terms to what it was in 2007 a. the most powerful military in the world -- 2007, as the most powerful military in the world engaged in a war in iraq and the challenge in afghanistan. if members of congress pay attention to the facts, they will see a clear path to dramatically reduce pentagon spending without undermining america's position as being the most powerful nation on the planet. and nobody has done a better job of highlighting a path forward, an area of opportunity, than walter pinkus writhing on the pages of the "washington post" over the last couple years as he details the sweep of our nuclear weapons program and the spending trajectory. this morning's latest offering should be required reading for every member of congress and the ones who whine the loutest should be forced to read it -- loudest should be forced to read it twice. he details a vast array of nuclear weapons already deployed, ready to be deployed within 30 minutes, a relic of our conten
the government watching? >>brian: the government will provide life lock for the pentagon, which we offer now is some kind of protection because we don't want all our secret cables to be exposed by idiots like the one we just had -- >> that's different from what the president did the other day. the government has an obligation to protect the pentagon. the government does not have an obligation to protect you or fox news or me or "the new york times." so what's the government going to do? the government is going to share information with major internet providers. and pretty soon it's going to say to the internet providers, all that information we gave you about us, we now want information about you. we want to know about kilmeade's e-mails. we're worried about him. we want to know who he's pha*eulg -- e-mailing so we can keep him safe. baloney. protect the government, but leave the rest of us with privacy. if you're going to interfere with the internet, should it be done by the command of one person -- the president -- or should it be done after great national debate and the congress? >>gretch
,000 dead americans, the trade towers are taken out, the pentagon's been hit. if it hadn't been for the folks on 93 they'd have taken out the white house or the capitol on washington, d.c. worst attack in our history. worse than pearl harbor by far. and it was our job to make certain it didn't happen again. we were concerned for a couple of rps, partly because the expectation was there would be a follow on attack, nearly everybody believed it. but we also received intelligence that al qaeda was trying to get their hands on deadlier weapons. >> rose: do you regret nothing about the aftermath in terms of how we -- >> regarding 9/11? >> rose: everything that we did and that you were and the president were at the center of the response to 9/11. look back and say "we regret nothing"? >> that's my view. >> rose: none? >> correct. >> rose: you know this has been debated, too. >> sure. >> rose: were we prepared for the consequences after saddam was overthrown? >> well, that was the second proposition. you asked me about the aftermath of 9/11, the policies we put in place here. i would s
the pentagon and military posts have strong seasoned leadership teams. regardless of having the secretary or not having one is a portent concern. -- a point of concern. you have a good strong team that will be able to manage through this process. they have seen this coming. as you would expect the military to do, they are prepared. host: new hampshire, and the pennant caller -- caller: morning and thank you. i am so tired of the irresponsibility of the republicans. the chuck hagel thing is preposterous. how does it serve the nation to delay the president's choice? it is the first time in history that a filibuster has been used against a cabinet the sequester is the height of irresponsibility. why risk a potential double dip recession just so you can score political points? finally, you criticized the president for being out of washington and yet, -- that was and finally -- hear you are supporting a filibuster and finally, though you partly answer the question or just now, what your district and tails are large installations, i assume, other than fort campbell in your district. my brother
critical american infrastructure the pentagon is planning a range of defensive measures including a massive expansion of its own signer security force. joining me to discuss the developing background is david sanger of the "new york times." he cowrote today's front page story on the subject. joining us later is dune lawrence of bloomberg businessweek if and michael riley of bloomberg. they are learning everything they could. >> so far it's clear they've been into those systems it's not clear they've ever done anything to them. >> rose: why -- >> that's the remarkable question charlie. always the issue is intent and the degree to which the political leadership in china actually is knowledgeable about this and to what degree of control it has over it. because chinese command and control is not always what we image it from afar. in this case, unit 61398 which is the major cyber intelligence unit for the pla but not their own cyber operation. sort of their equivalent of the national security agency or our cyber command which is located at the national security agency in fort mead. >> rose: c
is served until 2009, and works in the pentagon. our first call, on the republican line. caller: my daughter serves in the marine corps. i'm very proud of my daughter. if we take and put our people out of afghanistan, what is going to prevent these people from going back over -- coming back over to our country, and a glowing us up again? we may have gotten rid of osama bin laden. what about everybody else? we have to protect our people, whether it is in afghanistan, africa, or wherever. we cannot allow our people totally out of this country just because president obama says, they are muslims, they are my fellow men, my fellow religion, i want our people out of there. that is not right. i come over to our country and try to kill us. we need to stay over there and fight for our freedom. host: you bring up interesting points. basic idea we have in this country is that we get into wars, but we very rapidly lose the ability to support those wars, political perspective. we saw what happened in vietnam. if desert storm last longer, we would have seen the same thing there. we know what happened with
and commented on the pentagon lifting of the ban on women in the front lines of combat. one of the speakers was the first female pilot to fly in combat. here's a little of what she had to say. >> sitting in a squatter officer school, i was getting ready to go to fighter training, i just completed the triathlon, a bunch of injured 3, special forces, i take to their -- kicked their butts, and you had guys saying, "women don't have the endurance to do, admissions." you want to go outside and talk about this? [laughter] let's go for a run. the difficulty and the reason -- and seeing it even in the debates that are going on even though the train has left the station, a lot of people who are against this thing get away with you have been excluded from doing this, you have not done it, i have done it, therefore you cannot do it. i don't know if you have seen the nuances on tv lately. sure, you have been in combat and engaged with the enemy anbut that is the different from sustained operations. that is the language you are hearing, on fox, and it might. [laughter] -- fox, anyway. [laughter] justin
. i am very proud of the partnership that the state department has formed with the pentagon versus we on panetta and marty dempsey. by the same token americans traditional allies or friends in europe and east asia remain a valuable partner on nearly everything we do. we have spent considerable energy strengthening those bonds over the past four years. and i would would be clicked to add the u.n. the imf and the world bank and nato are also still essential. but all of our institutions and our relationships need to be modernized and complemented by new institutions, relationships and partnerships that are tailored for new challenges and models to the needs of a variable landscape. like how we elevated the chi 20 during the financial crisis, or created the climate and clean air coalition out of the state department to fight short lived pollutants like black carbon or worked with partners like turkey where the two of us stood up the first global counterterrorism forum. we are also working more than ever with invigorated regional organizations. consider the african union in somalia and the
essential. i'm proud of the partnerships the state department has formed with the pentagon. america's traditional allies and friends in europe and east asia remain in valuable partners in nearly everything we do. we've spent energy strengthening those bonds over the past four years. the un and world bank and nato are still essentials. all of our institutions and relationships check need to be modernized and complemented by new institutions and partnerships that are tailored for new challenges and model to the needs of a variable landscape. like how we elevated the g-20 during the financial crisis or created the climate and clean air coalition to fight short live pollutants like black carbon. or work with parties where we stood up the first global terrorism forum. we are working with organizations. consider the arab league in libya. even the lower mekong initiative that we created to help reintegrate burma into its neighborhood and try to work across national boundaries on whether dams should or should not be billult. ilt. world, people want to actually show up. a secretary state mig
Search Results 0 to 34 of about 35 (some duplicates have been removed)